why is this in the fs rules - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HUKD, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HUKD app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

All Comments

(23) Jump to unreadPost a comment
Comments/page:
[admin] 1 Like #1
Is this a trick question? It's so the seller doesn't blame shipping for damage and then refuse to take responsibility.
banned#2
Admin
Is this a trick question?


lol - you got me


No it flippin isnt, i just wandered why it was in the rules, now i know i aint gonna explain this one well, so try and bare with me


A breach of the forum rules will result in warnings, suspension or ban, yet when the goods arent delivered hukd says it is between the buyer and seller, so do the sellers get banned when they dont deliver?
[admin]#3
I don't think this was written with non-delivery in mind - more in the sense of bad description or broken items.

In terms of missing items I think the buyer should ensure they have tracking so they know if something is delivered or not.
banned#4
Admin
I don't think this was written with non-delivery in mind - more in the sense of bad description or broken items.

In terms of missing items I think the buyer should ensure they have tracking so they know if something is delivered or not.


errrrrmmmmmmmm that didnt quite answer the last question did it
#5
Admin
I don't think this was written with non-delivery in mind - more in the sense of bad description or broken items.


The problem with that is you could never be certain that the buyer didn't change their mind and break/damage the item themselves. In private sales, it's very much caveat emptor. Nobody wants to get involved.
[admin]#6
The seller should be responsible if things go missing. They should take out insurance, tracking whatever to ensure it arrives at the buyer. If they do not want to pay for insurance then they have to take the risk of non-arrival on themselves.
#7
Admin
If they do not want to pay for insurance then they have to take the risk of non-arrival on themselves.


So what about about if insurance is offered and the buyer is a tight git who wants it sent as cheaply as possible? That can't be down to the seller as the buyer has to assume ALL risk if the item gets lost.
#8
Shengis
So what about about if insurance is offered and the buyer is a tight git who wants it sent as cheaply as possible? That can't be down to the seller as the buyer has to assume ALL risk if the item gets lost.


It would be up to the seller, as he/she has the option to not carry on with the trade if he/she doesn't think the cover the buyer is asking for is enough.

I probably have missed the point somewhere.
banned#9
slightly missing the point here, i am referring to the breach of forum rules, clearly if it doesnt arrive then then the rules have been breached yet hukd does not warn, suspend or ban the seller
#10
sassie
slightly missing the point here, i am referring to the breach of forum rules, clearly if it doesnt arrive then then the rules have been breached yet hukd does not warn, suspend or ban the seller


True, but we have always known that HUKD do not get involved, and they make this clear.
If RM lose a parcel, and they admit it, should the seller be warned/suspended/banned?

The rules are not rules in "Legal" terms, as some of them are simply guidelines.
I do think that they should be distinguished between the two though.

I would actually like to see a response to the thread you started yeaterday, as it seems to have been missed.
banned#11
thesaint
True, but we have always known that HUKD do not get involved, and they make this clear.
If RM lose a parcel, and they admit it, should the seller be warned/suspended/banned?

The rules are not rules in "Legal" terms, as some of them are simply guidelines.
I do think that they should be distinguished between the two though.

I would actually like to see a response to the thread you started yeaterday, as it seems to have been missed.


lol - think im back on the ignore list:oops:
#12
sassie
lol - think im back on the ignore list:oops:


You had your answer...

http://www.hotukdeals.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181674

:? :lol:
banned#13
Shengis


chuffin eck, i thought i had sneaked passed that one:x
#14
sassie
chuffin eck, i thought i had sneaked passed that one:x


;-) :lol:

Funny thing was, when I looked at your post count about 15/20 mins ago it said 9999:whistling:
#15
thesaint
It would be up to the seller, as he/she has the option to not carry on with the trade if he/she doesn't think the cover the buyer is asking for is enough.

I probably have missed the point somewhere.


From adviceguide (this is related to internet auctions but still applicable).

When you buy goods from a private seller, you may not be able to make a claim against them if the goods are damaged or lost before delivery. However, if the seller has offered you postal insurance and you have accepted, they will be expected to make a claim on the insurance on your behalf.


I think where Sassie's coming from is that as the team won't get involved in disputes over FS/FT (being a private transaction between individuals), the 'rule' is actually redundant because there's no actual enforcement.
#16
Shengis

I think where Sassie's coming from is that as the team won't get involved in disputes over FS/FT (being a private transaction between individuals), the 'rule' is actually redundant because there's no actual enforcement.


Yes, but if it were happening repeatedly, then I believe that the team would take action(Warn/suspend/ban) wouldn't they?


When you buy goods from a private seller, you may not be able to make a claim against them if the goods are damaged or lost before delivery. However, if the seller has offered you postal insurance and you have accepted, they will be expected to make a claim on the insurance on your behalf.


This is a separate point that really should be on 'Col's" thread'.
I admit that I don't fully understand, and there isn't a standardised version on rules regarding postage.
banned#17
thesaint
Yes, but if it were happening repeatedly, then I believe that the team would take action(Warn/suspend/ban) wouldn't they?


people selling on behalf of a third party doesnt happen often, yet some are pulled, are you saying the rules are only worthwhile if it happens often?:?
banned#18
I'd happily sell something on behalf of my dad for example. The only situtation I would do this would be when the item is in my possession at the time of listing. I would expect to take full responsibility for the sale.

I thought that was a clear rule, although some items may have escaped, however I'm led to believe that they will be pulled.

Any examples?
banned#19
aScottishBloke
I'd happily sell something on behalf of my dad for example. The only situtation I would do this would be when the item is in my possession at the time of listing. I would expect to take full responsibility for the sale.

I thought that was a clear rule, although some items may have escaped, however I'm led to believe that they will be pulled.

Any examples?


well heres one http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/180050/lg-chocolate-with-charger-35/

please remember the op has been edited by a mod
banned#20
sassie
well heres one http://www.hotukdeals.com/item/180050/lg-chocolate-with-charger-35/

please remember the op has been edited by a mod


Hmmmmm, I would have expected that to have been locked whilst the mods discussed it with the OP regarding possession. Mibee there was an overlap I don't know, however as it originally stood it should not have been allowed.

I do notice however that the picture propreties are dated 03/02/2006 05:02. Not sure if this refers to the date on the phone that the seller took the pics, or some other piece of software.
#22
sassie
people selling on behalf of a third party doesnt happen often, yet some are pulled, are you saying the rules are only worthwhile if it happens often?:?


Like i said earlier, I think I am missing the point that you are trying to make, so shall take no further part in this matter. :)

aScottishBloke

I do notice however that the picture propreties are dated 03/02/2006 05:02. Not sure if this refers to the date on the phone that the seller took the pics, or some other piece of software.


Unrelated, If I take a picture with my phone they sometimes are dated months before I actually took them.
banned#23
I thought as much, I know the phone wasn't released till later in 2006. Usually the software allows you to maintain the original date of the shot or store as date of transfer from device. Still, I always like to keep the correct date on things :)

Post a Comment

You don't need an account to leave a comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!